Change Agents must focus on Politics first

Change Agents play on a different level than ordinary folk. They have to. It's part of the job description. When problems arise, ordinary folk react to it and address it. Change Agents, by way of contrast, redefine the problem entirely and respond in a completely different way.

This thought sprang full formed into my mind as I reviewed my actions last week. Frankly, I've been very critical of myself as treating a customer/partner in a very non-change-agent fashion. I'm disappointed in myself. But by way of After Action Review, I'm trying hard to learn my lessons so I don't repeat them in the future.

It struck me to bring my 4-Ps analysis to bear. To summarize briefly (for those who haven't been reading all along as I've developed my thought on this model):

As people develop in their careers they go through a series of transformations that redefine their understanding of what is important or relevant.

The first P is "Product" - the production of output that can be measured and evaluated for quality. It could be software, hardware components, ore whatever is the building block element in your industry.

The second P is "Process" - an understanding of the sequential steps to produce a quality product, or to organize a group of people to complete a joint task.

The third P is "People" - an appreciation for what it takes to motivate people to give their best and be motivated and invested in doing superior quality work (either product or process related)

The fourth P is "Politics" - an ability to navigation the relationships between organizational units and their priorities and commitments to achieve an outcome that is dependant upon groups other than one's own.

I've written quite a bit about this topic, and encourage you to check out the link above to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. It is one of the contributions I think I am making to the work-world, and the subject of a book-writing project I am (slowly) undertaking.

As this thought worked through my own brain today, I realized that Change Agents have to operate on a higher P level than others do. Since they are heavily involved in change - and organizational change at that - Change Agents have to be focused on the Politics level of the model more than might be ordinarily indicated for a given topic. I don't mean to get into the Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up debate, but in my own experience, regardless of the direction one chooses to approach a change topic, it eventually boils down to an organizational change issue. The direction only determines if that is a first or second concern. But it is a concern.

Therefore, the change agent has to be aware of the political level issues which come into play around their change initiative. Correspondingly, one of the primary concerns of the change agent is preparing the political (or inter-group) landscape to receive the change, embrace it and nurture it so that it can build sufficient momentum to become self-maintaining.

In my own story from last week, I let myself become too engrossed in the Process level of change and forgot to focus on People and Politics. Consequently, a political agenda cropped up and interfered with the change I was trying to support. And it caught me off-guard, and forced me to retreat because I didn't have a ready response or answer to the objection.

That's a failure on my own part. It pains me to write about it because I like to think of myself as an effective change agent. But in this situation, I pretty much failed. Now I'm relegated to reworking the process to repair the damage that was done and see how I can recover the situation. I put myself in a situation where one person could say "No" and make it stick. Rather than understanding the decision process and the commitments they had already made, I gave them the opening to create a world of work for me.

Thinking back to the different scenarios I've been in before where I was a successful change agent, I tended to lead with a Politics bent. That way I avoided the hard NO shut-down. But not this time.

Lesson learned. I hope you hear it from me. Change Agents have to be politicians first and foremost. Otherwise the Political Process of alignment and commitment will interfere with change -with the effect of preserving the status quo and resisting change.

I remember the thoughts in my head as we entered the discussion. They were almost exclusively Process-oriented. What did I need to get this person to do to create the right product scenario - far far from the Politics stance that was called for.

Learn my lesson with me. When leading change, figure out the political scenario before the process or product scenario. You'll do much better.

Every day my job brings me a wealth of observations about life in a technology company. Whether by observing office politics or by translating my hobbies, I gain insights into what works and what doesn't. My goal is to share these insights (protecting the guilty and innocent alike) to encourage you to engage deeply in your passions for greatness in your own life and career.

4 Comments

I disagree with Change Agents being a politician first and think that diplomat is a better term, at least using the general definition of politician as being someone that decides public policy. The diplomacy skills needed to navigate dealing with both departments and individuals can be tricky to build but this is where some people get their thrills.

"Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up" may be a useful article about how to handle failure or however one wants to describe dealing with negative outcomes. Granted it is within the confines of a lab that isn't quite the same as the real world in some ways as you've posted about before, but it may help to see a refresher there.

@JB
Read some of my other work on 4Ps. "Politics" in that context means something different than "being a politician". It has more to do with what is the most important element that a person focuses on - in this case the relationships between groups of people.

Remember, I'm presenting this idea inside a very specific framework... not the framework of everyday language.

So is this kind of like overloading a term? If so, then this does make sense though at times I wonder if this causes communication problems where there is more work to interpret what was meant rather than what was said.

By overload, I mean merely that a term has multiple meanings and that depending on context one should be able to infer which meaning was meant. As an example, calling someone a dog can either be a compliment, like on American Idol if Randy Jackson calls someone his dawg, or an insult like all men are dogs to take a common phrase.

I suppose so... however it's not unusual for words to have multiple contexts of meaning... So I don't think that's a bad thing. I usually try to label my context as "4Ps" and link to more reference material so the reader has the opportunity to engage in the correct context.

On a different note, I find it interesting how one context seems to dominate the landscape and become the "default context of meaning". That is a reflection on us as a people.

Disclaimer: Blog contents express the viewpoints of their independent authors and
are not reviewed for correctness or accuracy by
Toolbox for IT. Any opinions, comments, solutions or other commentary
expressed by blog authors are not endorsed or recommended by
Toolbox for IT
or any vendor. If you feel a blog entry is inappropriate,
click here to notify
Toolbox for IT.